Staffer axed by Republican group over retracted copyright-reform memo

Big Content doesn't like the GOP advocating for copyright changes.

The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives, has told staffer Derek Khanna that he will be out of a job when Congress re-convenes in January. The incoming chairman of the RSC, Steve Scalise (R-LA) was approached by several Republican members of Congress who were upset about a memo Khanna wrote advocating reform of copyright law. They asked that Khanna not be retained, and Scalise agreed to their request.

The release and subsequent retraction of Khanna's memo has made waves in tech policy circles. The document argues that the copyright regime has become too favorable to the interests of copyright holders and does not adequately serve the public interest. It advocates several key reforms, including reducing copyright terms and limiting the draconian "statutory damages" that can reach as high as $150,000 per infringing work.

The memo was widely hailed by tech policy scholars and public interests advocates. However, it raised the ire of content industry lobbyists, who applied pressure on the RSC to retract the memo. The organization did so within 24 hours of its release. Khanna's firing will only further raise the memo's profile.

His firing is a surprising move for a party that has been looking for ways to attract younger voters. Copyright reform enjoys broad popularity among Internet-savvy young people, and taking up the cause could have attracted the support of thousands of youthful redditors. But evidently, Hollywood's lobbying muscle was too powerful for the Republican leadership to resist.

We reached Khanna by e-mail on Thursday, but he declined to comment on the story.

Perhaps Ars should engage Khanna to write an article on the standing of various copyright reform positions in the current political climate. What ideas are people discussing, bot as seen in his policy brief and elsewhere? Who supports or opposes them, especially for non-obvious reasons? What has the most chance of passing?

Which is why making copyright reform part of their platform would have been a significant coup. The GOP is slowly realizing that they can't live off a diet of just the Old White People vote forever.

That's the problem with zealotry over issues like abortion, Israel, and making the rich richer: once these become moral rather than policy issues, anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but also evil. It makes it impossible to build a coalition because who wants to compromise with evil?

It's a vicious circle: the GOP can't be more rational and inclusive until it becomes more rational and inclusive. It's going to be old white straight Christian males for a long, long time.

To be fair, it'd take considerably more than getting behind copyright reform to attract a lot of redditors to the GOP.

There is certainly a lot of potential in the basic idea of "small government". It doesn't have to all be teabaggers and theocrats. You could appeal to a great deal of the middle just by realizing that a lot of people dislike various other forms of government meddling. People like their personal property rights too and copyright tends to come into conflict with those.

Plus, giving Hollywood the middle finger would play to the current party base.

"Why should we come to the defense of Sodom and Gamorrah?"

Frankly I am surprised this has not occurred to my own red state senators yet.

And this is why the GOP is ultimately doomed. It's older social conservative base is on the way out, and the younger generations aren't big on the GOP's religion-based gay bashing and dog-whistle racism.

If the GOP took more of a libertarian stance on individual freedoms and stopped with the social conservative nonsense, the war on drugs, etc, it could actually garner a large amount of support from young voters.

If the GOP is trying to minimize the memo's profile, well, they're doing a horrible job. The Democrats should hire Khanna immediately...

You realize that some of the biggest benefactors of current copyright regime are in Hollywood? And that they are a huge source of campaign contributions for a lot of democrats?

Yes, I do realize that -- hence my suggestion that the Dems should hire Khanna. If the Dems already supported copyright reform and had a guy like him proposing these ideas, then they wouldn't need him, right? Thought that was obvious.

As for the campaign contributions, well, yes -- I suppose the Dems would be taking a big risk that Hollywood stick by the party even amid copyright reform efforts and that the studios would be too afraid/reluctant to embrace the GOP. Then again, even if Hollywood doesn't shift money to the GOP and just pulls back funding for the Dems, it still puts a major hurt on the left for fundraising. But you have to weigh risk vs. reward in this case -- do you take a hit financially in an effort to build up the party's base with young, tech savvy voters? Or do you keep your fundraising base happy at the expense of attracting more support? Obviously I support the former, even though I expect the latter.

It's like the article from last week. Before one publishes their opinion they should ask themselves "who's paying the bills?". Unless you are EFF, chances are whoever is paying you doesn't want to hear about such radical ideas against the status quo. sure he may have a legitimate point, but that's not the reason he got fired.

Seems like a smart move. Use Khanna as the sacrificial lamb, boost the profile of this memo while keeping campaign funding intact. Seems too subtle of a move, though, so that might just be an unintended consequence.

It's like the article from last week. Before one publishes their opinion they should ask themselves "who's paying the bills?". Unless you are EFF, chances are whoever is paying you doesn't want to hear about such radical ideas against the status quo. sure he may have a legitimate point, but that's not the reason he got fired.

From a personal standpoint, yes, you're putting your job in danger by speaking your mind. But in politics, I think it's for the greater good, having people in office who aren't afraid to tread off the party line.

I was excited when the memo was published. But now it really seems the GOP has no idea what they're doing. I morally can't back a party that wants to send us back to 1950 socially or legislate social fabric in general (that shit doesn't belong in the law) and now they're firing a guy for something that was already taken care of? Ridiculous.

So although I hate what the Democrats have built (SocSec, Medicare/caid, the "affordable" care act, NAFTA) the GOP is leaving me with little choice but to cast my insignificant little vote for the Libertarian Party.

Can we just rename the USA "Hollywood's Bitchmonkey" now and be done with it? Every time the movie industry says "jump" it seems like all of our politicians and judges ask "on which of our so-called citizens?"

If the GOP is trying to minimize the memo's profile, well, they're doing a horrible job. The Democrats should hire Khanna immediately...

You realize that some of the biggest benefactors of current copyright regime are in Hollywood? And that they are a huge source of campaign contributions for a lot of democrats?

Yes, I do realize that -- hence my suggestion that the Dems should hire Khanna. If the Dems already supported copyright reform and had a guy like him proposing these ideas, then they wouldn't need him, right? Thought that was obvious.

The Democrats... you mean the ones that still backed SOPA/PIPA even after the entire tech industry screamed 'NO!'? The ones that backed it even after the Republics said 'whoa, maybe this isn't such a good idea...'? I'm pretty sure the Democrats would fire this guy even faster than the Republicans.

blueshifter wrote:

So although I hate what the Democrats have built (SocSec, Medicare/caid, the "affordable" care act, NAFTA) the GOP is leaving me with little choice but to cast my insignificant little vote for the Libertarian Party.

The Republican leadership would rather cast you aside in the hopes of pleasing people that absolutely hate them, both philosophically and personally. The current leadership is absolutely nuts. Completely out of touch with the entire world (Party of 1812 indeed!).

This is the problem with Politics in the US. All this talk of "demographics", all this keeping with the party line, all the worry about what your voter base will think if you try to change something, and all the worry about who appeals to who is nonsense. You know who should be in the GOP's demographic? Anyone who can cast a vote. Period. Same with the Democrats.

To be fair, it'd take considerably more than getting behind copyright reform to attract a lot of redditors to the GOP.

There is certainly a lot of potential in the basic idea of "small government". It doesn't have to all be teabaggers and theocrats. You could appeal to a great deal of the middle just by realizing that a lot of people dislike various other forms of government meddling. People like their personal property rights too and copyright tends to come into conflict with those.

Plus, giving Hollywood the middle finger would play to the current party base.

"Why should we come to the defense of Sodom and Gamorrah?"

Frankly I am surprised this has not occurred to my own red state senators yet.

But the problem is, the party as a whole can't leave well enough alone on "moral" issues. Social ones too for that matter.

It isn't simply a party of limited gov't. It is a party of limited gov't, bible thumping and help the rich first, and who cares about the rest.

I think the issue they have is the inclusion of all of the moral issues in their platform. If they COULD get rid of that, I think they'd be in a much better position. I know a lot of people who refused to vote that way because they had an issue with the seemingly anti-women's rights, or anti-gay rights, etc.

It isn't simply a party of limited gov't. It is a party of limited gov't, bible thumping and help the rich first, and who cares about the rest.

I'm far from a libertarian but the GOP seems to be a party of limited government in name only. Despite their claims to the contrary, the GOP is more than willing to embrace "bigger government" if it aligns with their moral, social, economic or military agenda. However, making an appeal to limited government does provide a nice sound bite for them when they want to denounce some sort of government program.

Perhaps Ars should engage Khanna to write an article on the standing of various copyright reform positions in the current political climate. What ideas are people discussing, bot as seen in his policy brief and elsewhere? Who supports or opposes them, especially for non-obvious reasons? What has the most chance of passing?

If he gets blacklisted by both parties, Ars would be a great outlet for his insights, raise his profile, and get picked up by some independent think tank.

It would be nice if more people started to realize that it doesn't matter who they vote for between the Democrats or Republicans. They are both incapable of considering the needs of their constituents beyond the minimum it takes to get them their next vote since they are blinded by a haze of probably immoral and unethical money flung at them by various outside interests. I hope the younger voters start learning to look outside of both parties for their votes.

If the GOP is trying to minimize the memo's profile, well, they're doing a horrible job. The Democrats should hire Khanna immediately...

You realize that some of the biggest benefactors of current copyright regime are in Hollywood? And that they are a huge source of campaign contributions for a lot of democrats?

Yes, I do realize that -- hence my suggestion that the Dems should hire Khanna. If the Dems already supported copyright reform and had a guy like him proposing these ideas, then they wouldn't need him, right? Thought that was obvious.

The Democrats... you mean the ones that still backed SOPA/PIPA even after the entire tech industry screamed 'NO!'? The ones that backed it even after the Republics said 'whoa, maybe this isn't such a good idea...'? I'm pretty sure the Democrats would fire this guy even faster than the Republicans.

When the Democrats finally started to abandon SOPA/PIPA, that was when Chris Dodd came out and basically said "What the hell are we paying you guys for again?"

As much as everyone is hoping a party is going to pick up the cause of copyright reform, it is going to be a difficult issue. Hollywood is also in the game with groups like Google and the Carriers. Expect all of them to want to have their say in reform. Republicans have also historically gone against net neutrality, so if copyright reform comes from their side expect it to be bundled with a "ISPs can do as they wish" clause.

I certainly agree that issues surrounding tech and the internet are going to have be big in gaining the support of the younger generation voters, but once again the ideals that they want with one party are broken between two.

His firing is a surprising move for a party that has been looking for ways to attract younger voters.

His firing isn't the least bit surprising for a party that is terrible at attracting younger voters.Unfortunately, as many others have already stated, the Democratic Party is hardly any better when it comes to copyright reform. Until both sides are able to distance themselves from the ridiculous amounts of money needed to get elected (supplied generously by corporations) it will be very hard for any substantive change to occur. Thank goodness for people like Mr. Khanna, sites like Ars, and groups like EFF for pushing for reforms despite the roadblocks

Perhaps Ars should engage Khanna to write an article on the standing of various copyright reform positions in the current political climate. What ideas are people discussing, bot as seen in his policy brief and elsewhere? Who supports or opposes them, especially for non-obvious reasons? What has the most chance of passing?

That is a damn good idea. I know Ars already has several people devoted to tech and policy, but it can't hurt to add another voice.

If the GOP is trying to minimize the memo's profile, well, they're doing a horrible job. The Democrats should hire Khanna immediately...

This is a reador fav but the Democrats are firmly in content creators pockets too. Artists skew socially to the left more often than the right, but they also make money from strong copyright. Follow the money, NO ONE in government has an motivation to change this law yet. Republicans get money from the CEOs of content distributors, and Democrats get money from content creators, and both get money from copyright. Constituents don't understand this yet and it will take a lot more education before we see a major shift on this. It doesn't help that both sides can't come to an agreement on the direction of the economy and taxes, that Republicans deny climate change on the whole, that we need to figure out citizens united and fix campaign finance, and that we are still battling it out regarding gay marriage rights and marijuana legalization.

I think fundamentally, taking out industries that have too much money due to intellectual property laws will free up a lot of capital to flow to other portions of our economy and spur innovation, but given how many other higher priority things there are on the list (and I believe all of those have higher priority), don't expect change on this any time soon.

I strongly encourage those who care about copyright to send the RSC a letter/email expressing your support for the memo and disappointment that Khanna was fired. Let's let them know that this idea has support!

I think the real reason why both the Republicans and Democrats are in the pocket of the copyright moguls is that it used to be safe, easy money. Until recently, nobody knew or cared anything about copyright, and public discussion was limited to occasional discussion of Disney extending Micky copyrights. Now, it's suddenly a real issue and neither side has realized it yet. The first one that's willing to break ranks and tell the content publishers to go shove it will get a lot of popular support.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.